To be completed by June 6th
Watch
Sometimes the embed seems to not load, at least for me. If that happens to you, just watch it on youtube (click on the youtube logo).
(My speaking notes for the video)
Read
-
Arguing with Digital History working group, “Digital History and Argument,” white paper, Roy Rosenzweig Center for History and New Media(November 13, 2017): Description: https://rrchnm.org/argument-white-paper/ Paper itself.
-
Tim Hitchcock, 2013 ‘Big Data for Dead People’ Historyonics
-
Matthew Lincoln, 2015 ‘Confabulation in the humanities’ blog
-
Explore two or three of the entries from last year’s DH Awards, under the ‘Best DH Data Visualization’, and the ‘Best DH Public Engagement’ winners, runners up, and nominees.
-
Michelle Moravec, Visualizing Schneemannn American Art History and Digital Scholarship: New Avenues of Exploration, November 15, 2013 http://historyinthecity.blogspot.com/2013/11/before-i-start-i-want-to-thank-people.html ; Her presentation (about ten minutes) is on youtube here; watch it (but feel free to watch the other presentations too).
Do
- Continue on with the sequence of tutorials you began with - the newcomer sequence, the standard sequence, or the going-further sequence. Alternatively, you may switch sequences at this point if you so desire; just make sure to make a note of it in a relevant log. Make sure to complete your logs and upload them to your Github repository.
- Use the template provided in the part three folder in the repo to write your log and to write your reflection. Use markdown conventions to indicate headings, emphasis, bullets, links, etc. The reflection prompt is below:
Think about how the various authors in the readings so far make the case for how digital history arguments are advanced. Think about the cycle of jumping from close to distant ‘reads’ or ‘views’ of your material, and the ways the stories emerge - or not. What is missing from historical argumentation in digital history? What is different about this process from what you have come to experience as historians in other classes? How do the particular affordances of digital work change what you might know - and how you might argue it? How much (or what) a priori knowledge is a requirement for digital history arguments to make sense to a reader/viewer/user?
Or, think about what you found intriguing, compelling, and effective about the various digital history sites and projects you have explored so far. Tie what you find/observe to your own work. With regard to your own work on the tutorials, reflect on your design choices and the story you’re trying to tell, or the interesting thing you’ve found. Critically evaluate the thing(s) you’ve made; perhaps show them to someone outside of this course and ask for their feedback. Did they understand the point you were trying to make? What was effective, for them, and what was confusing?
When You Get Stuck
There is no shame, there is no trick! You will get stuck. When you do, make a post in the help channel in Discord indicating what tutorial you’re working on, the error message that you are receiving, share a screenshot, explain what you were trying to do. There is no shame in asking for help; I do not want to learn that you have been suffering in silence trying to figure things out on your own. People who ask for help learn faster and have a better experience in this class and generally do better. You may ask me privately for help in Discord; we can screenshare and voice-chat as needed.
I will be in Discord nearly every day, and always on Wednesday afternoons.
Submit Your Work
Put any ephemera you create as you do the tutorials into the part one folder in your copy of the github repo I provided. Then, upload your materials to your online repo. Make sure your log and reflection are up to date. Submit the link to the part one folder in your version of the repo using this form.